Orlando Jury Awards $227K to Man Hit by Police Vehicle
Table of Contents
Case Background
The lawsuit stemmed from a June 23, 2019 traffic accident on S. Westmoreland Drive near Michigan Street in Orlando. Michael L. Hagans was driving his 2006 Nissan when an Orlando Police Department vehicle, operated by Officer Christopher Lewis Moulton, struck his car. Moulton was on duty and driving a city-owned Ford. Hagans claimed the officer failed to operate the patrol car safely and caused a crash that left him with lasting injuries.
Hagans filed his lawsuit in March 2021 after he notified the City of Orlando of his claims and complied with the pre-suit requirements for cases against government agencies in Florida. When the City did not resolve the claim, the case moved into litigation and eventually proceeded to a jury trial in 2025.
Cause
Hagans alleged that Officer Moulton drove negligently and failed to observe traffic conditions when he collided with Hagans’s vehicle. He said Moulton should have slowed down and kept a proper lookout but instead struck the rear of his car with enough force to cause significant injuries.
Under Florida’s dangerous instrumentality doctrine, the City of Orlando bore legal responsibility because it owned the patrol vehicle and allowed Moulton to drive it as part of his job duties. The complaint argued that the City was liable for the crash because its employee caused the collision through negligent driving.
Injury
Hagans reported several injuries from the impact. He said the crash caused continuing pain, physical limitations, and permanent scarring. He also described emotional distress, ongoing medical needs, and an overall loss of enjoyment of life. According to the complaint, the crash aggravated a prior condition and left him dealing with long-term physical problems. Hagans stated that the injuries affected his ability to work and earn money and that he continued to struggle with the effects of the collision years later.
Damages Sought
Hagans sought damages in excess of the Court’s $30,000 minimum jurisdictional limit. He asked the jury to compensate him for medical expenses, pain and suffering, disability, permanent injuries, loss of earning capacity, and other losses tied to the crash. He also sought recovery for the future impact of the injuries, including the continued medical attention he said he would require.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The dispute revolved around who caused the crash and how severe Hagans’s injuries were. During trial, both sides presented evidence about the moments leading up to the collision and the physical effects Hagans reported afterward. The jury listened to testimony from the parties, reviewed medical records, and considered competing explanations of how the accident unfolded.
The City admitted many basic facts about the officer’s employment and the ownership of the patrol vehicle but challenged the allegations of negligence. The defense attempted to narrow its responsibility, arguing that Hagans’s own actions contributed to the crash and that his injuries were either exaggerated or unrelated to the collision.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Michael L. Hagans
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Jason J. Recksiedler, Esq. | Caroline Fischer Espi, Esq.
· Experts for Plaintiff(s): Shaun Li | Ralph Marino | Michael Magee | Sean Mahan | Avery Knapp | Kristie Tearpock
Defendant(s): City of Orlando
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Martha Lee Lombardy
· Experts for Defendant(s): Richard L. Shure | Ravi R. Patel
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Plaintiff’s Position
Hagans’s attorneys argued that Officer Moulton failed to operate the patrol car safely and caused the crash through careless driving. They pointed to Florida law, which makes government agencies responsible for the negligent acts of employees working within their job duties. The Plaintiff’s team also emphasized the seriousness of the injuries and the effect the crash had on Hagans’s daily life. They said the medical expenses and the pain Hagans experienced showed how much the accident disrupted his routines and long-term well-being.
Claims
Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle
The complaint asserted that Officer Moulton did not use reasonable care and struck Hagans’s vehicle because he failed to keep a proper lookout, did not maintain a safe distance, and did not react in time to avoid the collision.
Vicarious Liability Under the Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine
Hagans claimed the City was legally responsible as the owner of the vehicle. Because the officer was driving on duty, the City answered for the consequences of his negligence.
Defense
The City denied that its officer acted negligently and argued that Hagans contributed to the crash. It also questioned whether Hagans suffered a permanent injury and raised several affirmative defenses. The City argued that Hagans failed to mitigate his damages, that some of his injuries came from other causes, and that Florida’s statutory limits on government liability applied to the case. The defense also invoked the collateral source rule, seeking credit for any payments Hagans might have received from other sources.
Jury Verdict
The jury reached its decision on February 13, 2025. After reviewing all testimony and evidence, the jury found that Officer Moulton was negligent in operating the patrol vehicle and that his actions legally caused Hagans’s injuries. The jurors also found that Hagans was partly at fault. They assigned 100 percent to the City of Orlando.
The jury awarded $77,000 for past medical expenses. They then decided that Hagans did sustain a permanent injury as a result of the crash, which allowed them to consider damages for pain and suffering. They awarded $150,000 for past pain and suffering which included physical impairment, scarring, loss of enjoyment of life, mental anguish, and inconvenience.
The total damages before comparative fault reduction came to $227,000. Because the Court, not the jury, applies the reduction for Hagans’s share of fault, the award on the verdict form reflected the full amount.
The verdict confirmed that the City of Orlando bore legal responsibility for the crash caused by its employee and owed significant compensation for the harm Hagans endured. The decision closed nearly six years of disputes and established that the collision left Hagans with lasting injuries that affected his life well after the day of the accident.